You and OP are defining it the wrong way.
DEFINITION of 'Gambler's Fallacy' When an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events.
It exists means there are people who erraneously believe that.
You are trying to catch me out on a grammatical technicality. Yes the fallacy itself exists, but it NOT an accurate representation of reality. Ergo, it is not true. |
|
|
|
Usually people go further into the loss because they feel it's more unlikely for a 50% loss to occur many times in a row, which is true.
It depends on how many events you have completed and what you are comparing it against. History is completely irrelevant to the future in these events (not all events - some have correlation, but gambling shouldn't or it's rigged) MEANING it doesn't matter how many times you have won or lost in the past, you're JUST as likely to win or lose as before. |
|
|
|
It absolutely exists; I lost almost all my balance because of that. twice now.
I got too many 7s in roulettts and lost too a few days ago.(lucky this one was a bonus code)
Edit: You got that 'Gambler's fallacy says that' part wrong. It is just the opposite.
Does not exist. Please look up variance or playing on a rigged site. The Gambler's Fallacy statement itself is correct. According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.
The player will go on playing till he lose everything.
I'm going to respond to this specific post - but anyone claiming that the users will lose in the long term with them having an "edge" against the house (assuming they are fair) doesn't understand basic probability. First off, what is the long run? When people refer to the long run - they might think 1 million events is long, maybe even 1 billion. Not so, long run means literally the largest number you could ever possibly think of (and yet still bigger than that) - better to think of it as infinity. Now the Law of Large Numbers - which has been proven both mathematically, logically and through modelling - means that as you approach an infinite number of events their outcomes will converge to statistical expectation. Now, as a player in reality cannot play to infinite games - they will face a degree of variance. Variance is what causes random streaks of wins and losses - not random voodoo skill. This variance should decline as they play more and more games - eventually with enough games (enough being effectively infinity) they should come out ahead if they have a positive EV. Hence, theoretically across a large number of events - an operator who offers +EV for their userbase can expect to lose money over time - although they could be extremely lucky and make a profit due to variance. But this variance WILL DECREASE, meaning with enough events the users can expect to profit. This is the basis of why no casino/gambling site will ever offer +EV to users permanently (possibly short term to entice customers or they're rigged). |
|
|
|
Wrong again in what, betting 1% of your bankroll is being safe, what is wrong about that
Wrong in stating the ideal bet would be 1% of one's bankroll. Well betting 1 btc wont be a good strategy since you can encounter loses and lose all your bankroll unless you have a really big bankroll like 100 btc, the ideal would be to bet
1% of your bankroll to be safe and not die when a lose streak happens.
|
|
|
|
Well betting 1 btc wont be a good strategy since you can encounter loses and lose all your bankroll unless you have a really big bankroll like 100 btc, the ideal would be to bet
1% of your bankroll to be safe and not die when a lose streak happens.
Wrong again. The best amount to bet as a % of your bankroll would be based on the Kelly Criterion - which is in turn based on how large your edge is. Man, with the amount of misinformation and foolishness around I should start a dice site - I see why Stunna keeps upgrading his service - he's raking it in. |
|
|
|
According to what I learned, the users will lose in the end, assuming bankroll of player < house and there is a max bet limit.
The player will go on playing till he lose everything.
I'm going to respond to this specific post - but anyone claiming that the users will lose in the long term with them having an "edge" against the house (assuming they are fair) doesn't understand basic probability. First off, what is the long run? When people refer to the long run - they might think 1 million events is long, maybe even 1 billion. Not so, long run means literally the largest number you could ever possibly think of (and yet still bigger than that) - better to think of it as infinity. Now the Law of Large Numbers - which has been proven both mathematically, logically and through modelling - means that as you approach an infinite number of events their outcomes will converge to statistical expectation. Now, as a player in reality cannot play to infinite games - they will face a degree of variance. Variance is what causes random streaks of wins and losses - not random voodoo skill. This variance should decline as they play more and more games - eventually with enough games (enough being effectively infinity) they should come out ahead if they have a positive EV. Hence, theoretically across a large number of events - an operator who offers +EV for their userbase can expect to lose money over time - although they could be extremely lucky and make a profit due to variance. But this variance WILL DECREASE, meaning with enough events the users can expect to profit. This is the basis of why no casino/gambling site will ever offer +EV to users permanently (possibly short term to entice customers or they're rigged). |
|
|
|
You should be able to win with martingale if the casino isn't rigged. Mathematics and common sense in general speak differently. In the short term with luck on your side you may be able to profit, but the reality is that there are ridiculous patches of bad luck (ie. doog reported some guy got hit with 31 losses in a row running martingale). The only way to profit with martingale is if both: a) you have infinite money (why are you gambling then - for the lols?) b) there is no max house bet (which there always is otherwise you'd be able to bankrupt the casino very easily if you got lucky) So basically the house edge will always get you if you play long enough (or just have shitty luck). |
|
|
|
|
Looking to build a Guild Wars 2 Heroic Edition key. AFAIK region doesn't matter as I'm not in NA/EU, so yeah.
Please post/PM prices.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
What's the smallest value prepaid CC you have? Can you send the details via PM rather than shipping a physical card?
|
|
|
|
1. he is a scared sheeple that doesnt know true value
To be fair though, knowing the intrinsic value of any item is nigh on impossible to actually work out (if it was everyone would just buy under the intrinsic and wait for the appropriate correction to occur - thereby making a profit) and for something that is unique (with a highly unpredictable future regarding both consumers and business users) such as Bitcoin making an actual valuation on its worth is naturally even harder. The reality is that a majority of people have no clue about a valuation - it's all purely speculation. |
|
|
|
You are not forced to pay a TX fee (probably said at least 10x so far in this thread) although removing the TX fee from your TX will generally cause small delays in the confirmation of your transaction.
The delays are not always small - there are various factors (including the settings of the major mining pools) that have implications upon whether you're transaction will actually ever go through. Generally though larger transactions (>1000 bytes) may not pass without a fee. |
|
|
|
Im considering whether i should start up a Bitcoin insurance company which would essentially insure you for certain amounts of Bitcoins. There will be premiums, and plans which i hope to set up to cover you in case of a theft or hack. Full details of the service may come soon depending on interest and demand.
I'm pretty sure this idea has been thought out before - how would you actually be able to confirm that the coins were in fact stolen rather than evidence planted and the coins moved. Secondly, wouldn't this whole thing (if it got customers) mean that addresses have to be tied to identities meaning the whole anonymous nature of Bitcoin goes out the window. Next, how exactly are you going to calculate a premium for this - you'd need an actuary to determine the likelihood of a loss and figure out premiums from this. Plus, insurance is based off a large scale long-term outlook, if you have a small userbase with a lot of incidents the business might be unviable. Sorry to be such a downer, but I wanted to know if you really thought this through. |
|
|
|
But no, instead we have thousands of 'shitcoins' made strictly, for the most part, to scam investors for a quick buck.
Whenever anything valuable/innovative is created you can be sure someone will try and create a competing fake in the attempt to turn over some easy money. All you have to do is look at the copycat stuff produced out of China on a regular basis. But yeah, I do agree with you that a majority of altcoins serve no other use than as a pump and dump. But then again a lot of the userbase saw the whole Bitcoin idea as a get rich quick scheme. |
|
|
|
This would possibly be the only other community where you would find anybody else. Trust me, Bitcoin isn't that big yet, it was a lot bigger last year around this time when the price started exploding upwards. A majority don't see this as a long term thing but as a get-rich quick scheme which evaporated when the price bubble popped. |
|
|
|
i think Mods should detect other accounts of this user and give these accounts negative feedback also
It's hard to confirm that people are in fact one and the same user - even with the same IP they could both be using an unknown proxy/VPN service (IIRC theymos stated he implemented a blocking system for new accounts from proxied IPs). Nonetheless, buying trust is pointless - the second people realised you tried to do it people would flag your account with neg rep. |
|
|
|
Transactions fees are voluntary and can be ignored if you choose.
Not if you use Armory Blockchain's online wallet also forces such a fee. If you want to attempt a free transaction then the imperative is on you to get a client which supports the functionality. Most of those wallets acknowledge that a majority of users aren't too worried about parting with 3c per transaction (or less depending on exchange rate and future implementations). You need to realise that without fees there will be no incentive for miners once block rewards finish and hence the network will die. |
|
|
|
The five Nobel Prizes are awarded for outstanding contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and work for peace. While obviously they can't give him a Nobel per se in those official five fields, if they would ever give him one it would be probably be the 'Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences' which is awarded by the same people who award the Nobels for Chem and Phys. But, that is assuming they're willing to give it to someone who is considered to be anonymous... |
|
|
|
Try Bikinidice which is a new casiṇ, managed by a very good man  IMO, you shouldn't advise people to keep investing in new dice sites that have no reputation and no verifiable details. Unless you know someone personally or you are cashed up and willing to part with your money I'd be extremely careful in randomly investing in sites which you cannot be sure are not scams. |
|
|
|
Agreed. I've been saying this for a while, especially over the past 6 months as people have been trumpeting the various merchant-acceptance announcements. That's obviously a great thing long-run too, but the situation has gotten too lopsided, and we need more bitcoin wages.
IMO both are very necessary for Bitcoin to gain usage. Without any retailers willing to accept Bitcoin (or at least major retailers) there won't be that many people using it as a currency and more as a store of value. On the other hand you need people to have a means of easily getting Bitcoin (exchanges while not difficult to use may to some extent intimidate an average user & it feels as if you're already trading 'money' to BTC rather than to another currency) and this provides another point of access for those people. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
